Tag Archives: The Jungle Book

Double Take: The Jungle Book 1967 vs 2016

So, like I promised, here is my second article about Disney’s two best takes on The Jungle Book. Last time I discussed the changes made compared to the source material and to each other. This time I will focus on how those two movies stack up to each other on a narrative level.

1. The Protagonist

Despite the title I choose for this section, I am actually not sure if Mowgli even if the protagonist of the animated movie. Yes, the story is about his journey, the villain is hunting him and his decisions largely drive the plot. But he also comes off like a living McGuffin for large stretches of the story, and I don’t use that word lightly. Nowadays it is thrown around at every opportunity, but it kind of fits in this case. Between no less that three characters wanting to either eat or possess Mowgli as well as two characters trying to rescue him all the time, there is a lot of passing around of Mowgli between the different players, sometimes literally. Add to this that the story is told from Bagheera’s point of view and that he is the one who accomplishes his goal in the end by bringing his charge to the village, and one has to question if the story isn’t more about him than Mowgli.

Consequently there is way more to Mowgli’s character in the remake. He has a clear desire – to be like the other wolves – he has a close relationship to a number of characters and above all, he is very self-reliant. I never quite bought into the Mowgli from the animated movie being so helpless. Yes, he is a child, but he is a child growing up in the jungle. He should have some basic self-preservation skills. The Mowgli in the remake does. He is still very vulnerable, but he also has some tools he can use and knows what to do when he ends up in danger. And he has an actual character arc. Kind of. In a way, it is still more Bagheera’s arc, because he goes from refusing Mowgli the freedom to use his humans abilities to allowing it within reason. But at the very least the movie examines  Mowgli’s struggle to fit in, and to obey the laws of the jungle. It allows him agency, and that is a welcome change.

2. The Mentors19 Baloo Mowgli

On a first glance, the two takes on Bagheera and Baloo are very similar in the sense that they differ from the book in the same way. Bagheera in the book has a whole backstory which explains his dedication to Mowgli, but is never relevant in either adaptation. And Baloo is portrayed as a wise animal and often strict teacher instead of the lazy joker Disney created.

Thus said, Baloo in the animated movie actually has something close to an arc in that he has to learn that his irresponsible actions have consequences, which eventually leads to him having to “betray” Mowgli in order to protect him, nearly dying fighting Shere Kahn and finally letting go of Mowgli. In the live action movie, the arc is still there, but it is kind of muddled because it is Baloo himself who first convinces Mowgli to not go to the village just yet, and they have an agreement that Mowgli will go there should it be necessary. What the live action take does better though is their first meeting. In the animated movie, Baloo befriends Mowgli just because they happen to bump in each other. The live action take gives Baloo a reason for his initial interest and takes the time to show how their friendship develops.

On the flip side though the live action take gives Bagheera an arc by allowing him to accept Mowgli’s human talents eventually instead of forcing him to act like a wolf in everything. In the animated movie he doesn’t change or develop at all despite his struggle to protect Mowgli being the focal point of the plot. He is right at the start of the movie and he stays being right towards the end of it. The only thing which can be considered somewhat of a change is that he has loosened up a little bit and is now appreciating Baloo a little bit more.

Both Bagheera and Baloo work the best in the remake whenever their characters are taken in a new direction and more fleshed out, but whenever it tries to recreate scenes from the animated movies, they fall flat because the they are lacking the same kind of built-up. It also does a better job to explore their relationship to Mowgli and to each other. By the end of it, the three characters feel like a true family unity.

3. The Elephants

I think the aspect which was changed the most from the original animated movie to the remake is the role of the elephants. In the animated movie, they acted as comic relief and are maybe the one time in which Disney shows some awareness about the larger context in the which the original book was written. Meaning Haiti ends up behaving like a stereotypical english officer during colonial times: Clueless but convinced of his own importance. Which is a stereotype we might want to rethink nowadays. Because I feel we kind of let the English off the hook if we we act as if what they did was just ignorance and not above all the attempt to squeeze foreign countries for their own benefit.

Hence I am kind of glad that the remake decides to go back to the roots and portray the elephants more like the nearly mythical creatures they are in the book. For one, it is more respectful towards Indian Culture in which the elephant is considered to be a royal animal, but I also love the moments of awe whenever they turn up. It gives the movie a very different vibe.

Plus, the remake actually utilizes the elephants as important part of the plot. In the animated movie they are only around for two reason: For some quick jokes and so that Shere Kahn can overhear Bagheera talking to Haiti about Mowgli. That’s it. But in the remake, they rescue the day in the end.

4. The Villains

Speaking of Shere Khan: He is sufficiently threatening in both versions. I have to say though, that his motivation in the animated movie makes more sense because it is simpler. He was away, he is back, and once he realizes that Mowgli is living in the Jungle, he will look for him and kill him because he hates humans in general. There is even an explanation why he hates humans: Because they are the one beings which are usually dangerous to him.

This seems to be initially the story with which the remake goes, too. Due to a hot summer, all animals meet at the watering hole, which leads to Shere Khan discovering Mowgli. But then they add this overly complicated story about Shere Khan killing Mowgli’s father and gotten scared in the process. I appreciate the effort to add a more personal note into their conflict, but for one, the story is unnecessarily convoluted and two, it kind of undermines the larger theme in the movie about acceptance. Because hatred against outsiders is rarely based on personal experience, it is usually the fear of the unknown which causes it.

Speaking of convoluted, the same is true for Kaa. In the animated movie, the story is simple, Kaa sees something tasty and wants it. This happens in the remake, too, but for some reason Kaa feels the need to tell Mowgli his whole backstory before eating him. That creates so many questions, starting with how Kaa even knows about it. This could have worked if they had created Kaa closer to the book (where she is actually a third mentor for Mowgli), but they somehow ended on some sort of mix between the wise snake and the dangerous predator which doesn’t work at all.

What works better is King Louis. In that the version in the remake is truly threatening. It’s a step away from the animated movie which really works because as enjoyable King Louis is as a character there, I never really got the sense that Mowgli is in actual danger with the apes. In the remake, King Louis acts more like some sort of mob boss instead of a silly king, whose own minions aren’t really afraid of him.

5. The Themes

Both movies ask basically the same question – where does Mowgli belong- , but come up with a very different answer. The animated movie falls firmly on the side that Mowgli finding his way back to other humans is unavoidable. Which, frankly, carries some really unfortunate implications from today’s perspective. Consequently the remake bakes a message about accepting each other differences while also following the law of society into the movie.

Society is also a big theme in the original stories. More often than not Mowgli learns some sort of lesson through his encounters with different animals. But this element is so watered down in the animated movie that any resemblance of a broader message is lost outside of Mowgli not being able to truly be like another animal, no matter how much he tries to fit in. Which frankly creates a very questionable Aesop by accident. And I am saying “by accident” because I don’t think that the animated movie even had the ambition to address some sort of larger theme. It just wanted to provide some fun time with a bunch of memorable characters.

The remake on the other hand clearly wants to examine Mowgli’s relationship with the other animals and his need to get acceptance. At the same time it celebrates not just Mowgli’s attempts to fit in, but also his differences, the abilities which give him an edge in certain situations. It is a concept one can easily translate to any stranger in any society and I don’t think that the Aesop is accidental at all in this case. It feels like a very deliberate commentary about recent events and anti-immigration politics.

6. The Animation

Yes, we need to talk about animation, because no matter how much the newest Jungle Book is tooted as a live action movie, in reality the only thing actually “real” in it is Mowgli himself. In the end, it basically is an animated movie, but one which goes for a hyper-realistic style. And it is an impressive achievement. If there is one point of criticism I have than that seeing the animals talking initially plunged me into uncanny valley territory, but I got used to it pretty quickly. And more than once I was very impressed about the movie managing to translate designs from the animated movie into CGI. Especially the moment in which Mowgli encounters Junior the first time made me smile, they got the expression of the little elephant spot on.

Junglebook-key-art-6000x3205

Who would have guessed that the only thing real in this picture is the boy?

 

Speaking of the animated movie: It looks great for the era in which it was made. As I pointed out before, what I call the Disney Impressionism was limited by the need of making an affordable movie, so it never was as ambitious as the Disney eras which came beforehand, nor can it compete with the Disney renaissance, which allowed the animators to reach new highs due to the use of computers. But The Jungle Book was also a pet project of Walt Disney, which ensured that the animation ended up one of the best the era has to offer. The jungle itself looks lush, and while there are still very notable lines in the animation itself, the character designs belong to Disney’s best work.

7. The Music

The music of the two movies is more or less the same, at least regarding the songs, except it isn’t. But let’s take this from the top. The soundtrack of the animated version is iconic. While the score wasn’t originally written for The Jungle Book (yes, that is true, the main theme is one of the unused pieces of the Sherman Brothers originally created for The Sword in the Stone), it creates the secretive mood around the jungle, making it both threatening and exiting. To be honest here, the songs are the main reason why this movie is so successful in the first place. All the iconic scenes in it involve the characters singing and dancing.

Ironically the use of the songs is mostly to the detriment of the remake. It works whenever a song is played mostly in the background like in the scene with Kaa, or when a character just hums a few lines, like Baloo does at one point. But whenever they break out in a musical number it is awkward and interrupts the flow of the movie. Or, to put it differently, having Baloo singing about the easiest way to get food while demonstrating his abilities to Mowgli is very dynamic and a lot of fun. Having him do it while floating in the water ruins the feel of the scene.

But I think the worst example of it is King Louie starting to sing. The song simply doesn’t fit the character as it is represented in the movie, and having this threatening figure break out in lyrics is just really, really jarring. I get that Disney wanted to appeal to the fans of the animated movie, but I think it would have been better to tone it down a little bit regarding the songs. CGI just can’t create the same kind of dynamic movies traditional animation is able to offer, and tonally it is very jarring when a movie which doesn’t start as a musical suddenly becomes one out of nowhere.

8. The Sequel

Let’s cover this fast: The sequel to the animated movie was a huge let down. I actually saw this one in theatres, back when I was unaware of what a cheapquel even was. I thought it was a genuine attempt to continue the story by the animation studio itself and was frankly stunned by what I saw, a tired rehash of the highlights of the first movie barely connected through a very uninspired plot.

But if there is a story for which a sequel makes sense, it is The Jungle Book. It shouldn’t be too difficult to carve out a solid trilogy out of stories in it. Which is why I look forward to the seeing a sequel of the remake, especially since it would no longer be beholden to the animated movie.

9. The Big Difference

Those are two movies which were made with a very different goal in mind. Rumour is that Walt Disney assembled a new team of animators and told them to not read the book after he was dissatisfied with the original storyboards for the movie. His take on the story was never meant to reflect the story, it was meant to be a Disney movie first and foremost.

The Remake had a way more challenging task. It had to create something which would satisfy fans of this animated movie, but would also please a modern audience. On top of this there was some effort made to reintroduce aspects from the book back into the story, as well as having a thematic underpinning. Meaning that in a lot of ways, the remake is the more ambitious movie.

10. The Conclusion

The animated Jungle Book is just a piece of good natured fun and has no intention to be anything more than that. It succeeds in being just that, making it one of those cases in which a movie is not a particular good adaptation, but an enjoyable watch anyway on its own terms. The songs are catchy, the character animation impressive, and while it is far from being one of my personal favourite Disney movie, it is beloved by many for a reason.

The remake struggles between being a remake and trying to tell its own take on the story. But in the end, it mostly succeeds, mostly because their version of Mowgli is a way more compelling character. This would be a must-watch movie for the technical aspects alone, but it also offers a modern take on The Jungle Book which is well worth watching.

You can’t really go wrong with either movie. They both provide a valid take on the original story in their own way. Making this the first (and so far only) Disney remake I would recommend.

Advertisements

By the Book: The Jungle Book

Disney’s current obsession with live action remakes has a lasting impact on my posting schedule. More often then not I end up delaying an article until I have seen a remake (which is not in theatres), just in case that it might end up being relevant. Usually it isn’t and I end up throwing in my two cents – or a long rant – at the end of a finished article. But I guess there is an exception to every rule. I have finally gotten around to watch The Jungle Book and to my delight Disney not only created for the very first time a sequel which I would recommend, but one worth discussing. And not just in a “By the Book” context, this deserves a “Double Take” article.

So I’ll do the following: I’ll adjust my approach to “By the Book” a little bit to fit this particular situation and compare both adaptations to the source text and each other. But I’ll leave technical aspects and a deeper analysis of the characters and the structure of the respective movies for “Double Take”.  So, don’t expect this one to get too analytical, I’ll focus entirely on the differences this time around.

 

1. The original Jungle Book

Technically there are two Jungle Books, but they are usually published in one book nowadays. Each is a collection of short stories, and between each of the short stories is a poem.  And not all of them are about Mowgli, nor are all Mowgli stories in those books. Mowgli actually makes his first appearance in the short story In the Rukh. It describes an English forest ranger encountering a young man named Mowgli with extraordinary tracking abilities and a strange connection to wolves, eventually discovering that Mowgli was raised by wolves. It further describes Mowgli falling in love, marrying and fathering a son before returning to his wolf brothers.

The two Jungle Books pick up Mowgli’s story again, describing his childhood. There are overall eight short stories covering the events before In the Rukh as well as six related poems: Hunting-Song of the Seeonee Pack,  Road-Song of the Bandar-Log, Mowgli’s Song that he Sang at the Council Rock when he Danced on Shere Khan’s Hide, The Law of the Jungle, Mowgli’s Song against People and The Out-Song. The short stories which are relevant for discussing the Disney adaptations are Mowgli’s Brothers (which tells the story about how Mowgli was raised by the wolves and his fight with Shere Khan), Kaa’s Hunting (a midquel to the previous story about how Mowgli once got kidnapped by the apes/Bandar-Log) and some elements of How Fear Came (covering the events during a Water Truce). The other five stories, Tiger! Tiger!, Letting in the Jungle, The King’s Ankus, Red Dog and The Spring Running explore Mowgli’s relationship to humans and to his former pack.

One can’t understate the influence The Jungle Book had on literature, especially children’s literature. But it also shouldn’t be unmentioned that Kipling himself is a controversial figure. I mean, what can one expect, he was an Englishman growing up in India during Imperialism, he had attitudes which were certainly questionable. And I certainly won’t go and defend him or his work as a whole. However, I’ll say that I consider it questionable to read imperialistic messages into The Jungle Book, because this approach always ends up with the claim that a specific group of animals supposedly presents a specific group of people, and I find little indication of this in the story. Plus, one shouldn’t forget that Mowgli is representing humanity in the story, meaning humanity is represented by an Indian boy and not (like it is the case in the Tarzan stories) some lost British aristocrat.

Now, the stories which involve other humans, they might be a little bit more iffy, especially once British characters turn up (though that happens only in one story which isn’t even part of the Jungle Book). I can understand why it might not sit right with Indians that some Jingoist writer went and criticized their caste system, as well as portraying them as superstitious and greedy. However, I also don’t think that the stories would get the same scrutiny if they had been written by someone else or maybe even an Indian.

I myself read the stories always more as a collection of morality tales, being an exploration of the relationship between humans and nature (with humans rarely being portrayed all that positive) as well as an exploration of what it means to grew up between two completely different societies. Especially greed and egoism are portrayed in a negative light, but above all there is a heavy emphasis on the need to respect the laws of society. In the book those laws consist of a combination of obedience towards the ones which are older and wiser (or higher on the food chain) as well as acting socially responsible. The emphasis on obedience is a little bit troubling from a modern point of view, but the idea to act for the good of all and not just for your own good certainly isn’t. At the end of the day, though, this are mostly vague ideas and some aspects of them are even discussed in the stories, with no clear cut conclusion made in the end. Which might be why they have endured so long, because whatever Kipling might have thought, the stories are more about exploring concepts than presenting any kind of judgement about them.

2. The Jungle Book (1967)

The Jungle Book is commonly considered the last movie Walt Disney has done. In reality, Walt Disney wasn’t really involved in the everyday business of the animation studios anymore when the production on the movie started. But he certainly took an interest in this particular project, more to the ones which came beforehand.

Originally The Jungle Book was supposed to be way closer to the source text. But when Walt Disney saw the first storyboards, he felt that the approach was too dark. He gave the soundtrack to the Sherman brothers with only “Bear necessities” remaining and set a new team of animators on it with the order to ignore the storyboards completely. If you pay attention to the credits you’ll notice that the movie claims to be “inspired” by the Jungle Book, rather than being an adaptation. Because that is what Walt Disney intended.

Consequently it is a little bit pointless to compare the Disney version to the source material. The only thing left is the setting and the names of the characters. It is basically a completely original story based on the same concept. The end result is a movie which is popular but not particularly ground breaking.

I am not sure about the current generation, but back in the day, The Jungle Book was big. Maybe partly because it was released in the middle of what is considered the Dark Age of Animation. Just take a peak into my coverage of the 1960s when I was looking for the winner of the swanpride award. With so few high-quality animated movies being released, The Jungle Book must have looked like a masterpiece. I am not sure how it stacks up compared to the Disney Canon in general. It is certainly a good movie, but I would dispute that it is a great one. It is certainly influential, though. Most adaptations which were released after contain at least some elements and ideas from this one.

Nowadays it often comes up in “Disney is racist” discussions. To get this out of the way, too: This accusation is mostly based on the role of the apes play in the movie, especially King Lois. They are seen as racist caricatures of blacks. Here is the thing though: There was the idea to have a few better known artists doing the songs of the movie. King Lois was supposed to be voiced by Jazz Legend Lois Armstrong and the vultures were supposed to be voiced by the Beatles. But Walt Disney felt that the Beatles would soon be forgotten (well, he was maybe the most visionary producer of all time, but that doesn’t mean that he was always right) and wanted to avoid the unfortunate implication of casting a black man to voice an ape. So in the end, the role went to Louis Prima, the king of swing – apes, swinging, do you get it?

Nevertheless the apes are still often accused of being caricatures of black people even though this was clearly not the intention. And the song “I want to be like you” is sometimes read as a black person wanting to be a white one. Which, to be frank, makes no sense to me whatsoever. Even if we assume that apes acting like apes is supposed to refer to certain racist imaginary in which humans act like apes (though that would beg the question how exactly animated apes should act if not like apes), how exactly does Mowgli qualify as “white”? As I pointed out above, he is an Indian boy and he clearly looks the part. If you take the song out of context maybe you could argue that Jazz music is inherently linked to the Black community, but then there is still the fact that it isn’t sung by a black man, but by an American with Italian roots.

Bottom line, if you want to see racism in it, you will be able to find it.  But I really doubt that there are many people out there who look at this and immediately go “oh, yeah, those silly blacks will never be as good as we white people”.

3. The Jungle Book (2016)

When Disney decided to do a live action remake, was sceptic, but less annoyed than I am usually are. After all, I knew how much of the source material Disney left untapped the first time around. There was a difficult balance Disney had to maintain, though, since this wasn’t just supposed to be a new take on The Jungle Book, but also a remake of the animated movie. The result was an entirely new version of the story, which borrows from both sources and still managed to create something completely new.

To illustrate the point, here some back-to-back comparisons of the three versions:


Original: Mowgli is found by Wolves, who defend him against Shere Khan.

1967: Mowgli is found by Bagheera in a wrecked boat and secretly brought to the wolves.

2016: Mowgli is found by Bagheera after Shere Khan killed his father and openly brought to the wolves.


Original:  Bagheera and Baloo are both Mowgli’s mentors, Bagheera because he was raised by humans and therefore knows about their ways and Baloo because he is old and wise.

1967: Bagheera visits Mowgli from time to time. Baloo his a lazy, go lucky personality Mowgli happens to encounter during his travel.

2016: Bagheera is Mowgli’s mentor. Baloo is both old and wise as well as displaying a lazy, go lucky personality. He becomes a second mentor figure for Mowgli after rescuing him from Kaa.


Original: In order to get to Mowgli, Shere Kahn is convincing the younger wolves in the pack to usurp Akela so that they can send Mowgli away.

1967: Akela decides that Mowgli has to go. Bagheera suggests to bring him to a village he knows.

2016: Mowgli, seeing the pack arguing, suggests to leave himself. Bagheera suggest to bring him to the village. Later on Shere Khan is trying to poison the mind of the young wolves against Mowgli.


Original: Kaa is a wise python, who helps Mowgli multiple times. Hypnose is mentioned, but it is a Cobra who does it to the Apes and Baloo and Bagheera while Mowgli seems to be immune.

1967: Kaa is a secondary villain and comic relief who hypnotizes and tries to eat Mowgli multiple times, but always gets districted long enough that Mowgli can escape.

2016: Kaa is secondary female villain who hypnotizes and reveals the truth about his past to Mowgli and then tries to eat him, but is attacked by Baloo.


Original: Hathi is the leader of the elephants and another mentor figure of Mowgli.

1967: Colonel Hathi is a caricature of English colonialism, acting like a particularly idiotic English officer and constantly talking the story about how he was awarded the Victoria cross.

2016: The Elephants, including Hathi, are god-like creatures in the eyes of the other Jungle animals.


Original: Shere Khan disturbs the water truce and is driven away by Mowgli

1967: No mention is made of a water truce

2016: Shere Khan turns up during the water truce, discovers Mowgli and threatens him.


Original: King Lois doesn’t exist. The apes are outsider in the jungle because they don’t accept any form of authority or rule. They kidnap Mowgli an bring him to the old city simply because they are curious, but he is rescued by Baloo, Bagheera and Kaa, who breaks down a wall to free Mowgli.

1967: King Lois is the ruler of the apes who desires to be like a human and kidnaps Mowgli because he wants to learn how to create fire. When Baloo and Bagreera rescue him, enough pillars are destroyed that the city breaks down.

2016: King Lois is the ruler of the apes and kidnaps Mowgli because he wants to harness the power of the “red flower” and become the most powerful being in the jungle. During the rescue attempt he follows Mowgli into a room in which he destroys enough pillars that the whole building falls down on him.


Original: Mowgli uses the “red flower” to rescue Akela’s life and drive Shere Khan away. But having done so, he has embraced his humanity and can therefore no longer stay in the Jungle. He lives a while in the village but eventually returns into the Jungle, just to leave again and returns to the humans when he is around 17 because he “feels restless”.

1967: After having established Shere Khan’s fear of fire earlier, a convenient lighting stroke provides Mowgli with fire he uses to drive Shere Khan away. At this point Mowgli could stay in the jungle but ends up leaving anyway because, he sees a beautiful girl and can’t resist.

2016: Mowgli steals the “red flower” from the village an intends to use it on Shere Khan, but, seeing how much the other animals fear him, decides to throw the weapon away, showing himself worthy of the jungle. He then lures Shere Khan into the flames, though. At least in this movie he stays in the jungle, but who knows what will happen in the sequel.


There is more, but I those are the main events and I think they bring the point across pretty well.  The 2016 adaptation is closer to the original version than the movie from 1967, but it borrows heavily from both and introduces a number of new elements. Ie the hunt for the honey. The cliff with the bees is mentioned in Red Dog, but in a completely different context, and Baloo is way more cunning than in either the source text (where his main characteristic is wisdom) or the animated movie (where his main characteristic is being extremely laid-back). And thematically, it tells a completely new story. But that is something for the next article to discuss.

4. Other adaptations

Normally I would now judge the movie (or movies) on their merit as adaptation and as movies. In this case, though, this seems to me a at least partly useless exercise. There are a number of adaptations and every single one of them is very different, depending on which story was picked. In addition, a lot of the ones made after 1967 have been influenced by the animated movie one way or another. Disney itself went back to the well multiple times, in both movies and TV shows, sometimes by doing some sort of spin on the animated movie (or should I say TaleSpin?), sometimes by trying their hand at a live action adaptation.

But here is a list of the ones which stick out:

An absolute must-watch is The Jungle Book from 1942, starring Sabu. Loosely based on three of the later short stories –  Tiger! Tiger!, Letting in the Jungle and The King’s Ankus – it is a true gem of classic cinema. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if Favreau ends up borrowing some ideas from it for the upcoming  Jungle Book 2.

The closest adaptation is a series of animated movies created between 1967 and 1971 in the Soviet Union. Unlike the Disney take this version takes the source material very serious and doesn’t even try to make the animals look cute.

I guess I should mention Disney’s first live action take from 1994. This one mostly sticks out, though, because it is a terrible adaptation. I suspect the original idea was to do a combination on In the Rukh and The King’s Ankus, but the end results comes off more as Tarzan in India than a Jungle Book story. It’s not the worst movie, but a fan of either the book or the Disney animated movie will certainly feel let down by this take.

Japan naturally did their own take on it in 1989 (honestly, is there any classic children’s book which hasn’t been turned into an anime?).  Jungle Book Shōnen Mowgli follows the original story pretty closely, but with some elements from other adaptations as well as some new ideas thrown in. A particular oddity is Mowgli using a boomerang instead of a knife. Overall, though, it does take the source material serious enough to tackle some heavy material for a children’s show.

 

5. The Conclusion

The Jungle Book offers a lot of material for adaptations, which led to a number of different takes on the story. I think, everybody has to decide for himself what kind of adaptation he wants. For something fun, the Disney version of 1967 is certainly a good pick, while the remake of 2006 offers both, the serious elements from the source text and the fun of the animated movie.

For a deeper analysis, well, tune in next time. For now I hope you have gotten an idea how those two adaptation relate to the source material and to each other.

Baloo-and-Bageera-the-jungle-book-9883216-140-145